A few points...
I was at a company that bought a startup/product, let the original guys go, and sent it to India. They tried the "one smart guy who runs the India team". That didn't work, and when they were in jeopardy of being in breach of contract to the tune of several million dollars, they then had to hire a local American team to fix what the Indian team had done.
The thing is, the Indian team didn't cost *that* much less. They could have had a smaller American team from the start for about the same amount of money and they would have avoided the crap that the India engineers wrote. It was like watching a high school kid write code (and the hardware they designed wasn't any better).
But, you know, it probably gets the CEO a bonus at the end of the year because he made the bottom line look briefly better.
Back when Japan was the big competitor that everybody worried about, I was at a startup that didn't make it, and they arranged for the technology group to be sold off to a Japanese company (basically so that engineers would keep their jobs - really good E staff at our company). The point though, is that the Japanese company could articulate their plans not for the next quarter or next year, but for years ahead. They were playing for long term, not short term. Saving a few bucks a quarter so the CEO can give himself a bigger bonus is not the long term way to succeed, but CEOs aren't playing for the company, they're (mostly) in it for themselves. They have no more loyalty for the company than they have for the employees they screw over.
What message does it send when a company like Carnival pulls a dick move like this? They'll have all this great HR stuff about how much they value their employees, but after watching what happens to the IT staff, everybody else realizes what the score really is. And guess what? The remaining people end up with absolutely no loyalty for the company, doing the minimum required to get by, and screw the company. When the employee has to make a decision that might be good for him, but bad for the company... guess which way the decision will go? And the company will absolutely deserve it! If it's everybody for themselves then don't be surprised when the employees goals aren't the same as yours!
There was a local company in the Boston area (Digital Equipment Corporation) who had an amazing CEO. Talk to people who worked for this company and they'll all tell you stories about Ken Olsen. How much he cared about the employees and basically "doing the right thing". Now, hey, they're out of business... but same thing happened to a bunch of their competitors - basically the PC killed them. But the point is, people knew that Ken cared about the little guy. Example: he noticed in one building that all the managers had grabbed the window offices and all the rest of the staff were stuck in the middle with no outside view from their cubicles. At most companies people would have said "yeah, managers are more senior, of course they get the better offices". Instead Ken issued an edict that there would be NO window offices, that only corridors could be next to windows, so that *everybody* could leave their cubicle and look outside for a couple minutes during their workday. Cost the company nothing, but got a lot of goodwill from the employees. There were a ton of stories like that about the guy.
Many modern CEOs don't get how important that is. I worked my butt off when I was at that company and one of the reasons was that I knew Ken Olsen cared about me, a lowly engineer, and so I damn well cared about him and his company and I did my best to make them succeed (which they did while I was there!).